User talk:Amerheb2020

Welcome!

Hi Amerheb2020! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! —Soap— 12:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Amerheb2020 I have been looking over your edits with concern, particularly the one to One, Two, Buckle My Shoe. I strongly advise you to look at WP:SOURCE, particularly its comments on the inadmissability of primary sources, before making claims about material being "one of the most famous" adaptations. WP is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for your personal opinions. I suggest you click on the "Learn more about editing" button in the message with which you were greeted so recently before making any more edits. I also advise you to revert your recent edit; there are penalties for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) I have Read through the Resources carefully, and none of what I edited is my Personal opinion here. I am just trying to update the existing very old content so that it can be contemporary and follows what actually is the state today. if you see that WIKI should just be a Historical Place for info and not be updated sure why!

Amerheb2020 (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP is a co-operative venture governed by guidelines. Those that are not prepared to accept them and dismiss the work of fellow editors as old-fashioned, which is a breach of WP:AGF, will eventually be viewed as disruptive. An encyclopaedia basically sums up previous scholarship; its attitude to the contemporary is that any evaluation should have a well-respected scholarly source, and not be a personal interpretation of, in your case, the number of hits on YouTube. You need to prove that someone else has stated the same thing. Part of the trouble seems to be that English does not appear to be your first language; perhaps you have not adequately understood what the guidelines say. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetpool50 I have undone the changes out of respect to you and your expertise in Wikipedia. P.S: I hope you can be nicer to people especially people trying to add new and valuable information rather than keeping the same info for years without any update.Amerheb2020 (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cocomelon

Im glad to see youre a fan of nursery rhymes, but I decided to erase the paragraph you added to the Cocomelon article because I felt that it did not add any new information that would be valuable to readers learning about the Cocomelon channel for the first time. If you want to pick out a single video, you really should look at what news outlets are saying. In this case, the song you mentioned is in fact already mentioned later on in the article, and does not need to be mentioned twice. Thank you, —Soap— 21:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Hello, I'm William Harris. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Weimaraner have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. William Harris (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Amerheb2018 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amerheb2018. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Amerheb2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry for the inconvenience caused my intention was to share my knowledge and give people a helpful link if you actually click on it you would see that its full of great info, if blocking me makes Wikipedia a better place then I accept I just wanted to add a contribution here as a dog lover Amerheb2020 (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Amerheb2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry i didnt know these points , Yes will not continue to cause damage or disruption and will make useful contributions that was the main point of doing this account is to share my knowledge and i understand that putting external Links is forbidden, only texts Amerheb2020 (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

None of this addresses the reason for your block. Additionally, external links are not forbidden, only inappropriate links like you were adding. Yamla (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yamla can you please explain to me why the link I added was inappropriate ? have you even visited the link?

It would have been convenient if you had have raised this question with me on User talk:Amerheb2018 - which would have averted this unpleasant exercise - but allow me. If a reader clicks on the link that you placed, they will be taken to a website. The website gives part of an opening sentence and the opportunity to "Read more". A reader clicks on "Read more" and is taken to an article which includes an advertisement for a book (no doubt the book that it was drawn from). Every "Read more" across the entire website leads to an advertisement for the same book. Clicking on the book leads to "Buy this book". Basically, the site is a vehicle for promoting the book with some information wrapped around it.

The creator of both the website and the book has stated "I started this website because I wanted to share my journey with Max my Vizsla dog......and if you want check out my Book"

Your editing record reveals that you have come to Wikipedia with the purpose of promoting two websites, and all references to both have now been removed by editors across several articles. However, your question is irrelevant to the reason as to why you have been blocked. William Harris (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: One Little Finger (October 4)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Salimfadhley was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Salimfadhley (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amerheb2020! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Salimfadhley (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:One Little Finger

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:One Little Finger requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://supersimple.com/song/one-little-finger/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]